One more time - let's look again at what GLAD has to say ( from reply 136 ):
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders - GLAD Cases
(scroll down to near bottom of the page)
"Netherland et al. v. Whiteman et al. (Massachusetts)
CASE PENDING
GLAD is putting the right-wing on notice that they cannot use intimidation tactics to try to stop vitally important sex education information from getting to young people. In violation of Massachusetts wiretapping and privacy laws, Scott Whiteman, Brian Camenker, and the right-wing organization Parents Rights Coalition publicly distributed a tape recording of a sexuality and HIV/AIDS prevention education workshop conducted in March, 2000 at a conference sponsored by GLSEN. GLAD filed suit in Massachusetts Superior Court on behalf of Julie Netherland, a former employee of the Department of Education, and obtained a temporary restraining order (later converted to a preliminary injunction) to stop the defendants from further distributing the tape recording. After a lengthy discovery period, GLAD filed a motion for summary judgment, which is now pending."
Seems that GLAD's primary focus is anywhere but violation of privacy. Nooooo, this isn't about privacy. This is all about "putting the right-wing on notice that they cannot use intimidation tactics to try to stop vitally important sex education information from getting to young people" (that would include "fisting," correct?) and stopping the defendants from further distributing the tape recording.
"Camenker/Whiteman STILL VIOLATED COMMONWEALTH STATUTE!!!"
It will be three years next month and Camenker and Whiteman have NEVER been charged of any crime in a Massachusetts criminal court. If they "broke the law," can you show us when and where they were charged and convicted in a criminal court? What fine was levied by the court? Have they been sentenced in any way?
If this was such an "open-and-shut case" as you claimed in reply 260, why did GLAD require a lengthy discovery period? Why after nearly three years are they just now taking depositions? I'll tell you why - nah I'll let GLAD tell you why:
"GLAD is putting the right-wing on notice that they cannot use intimidation tactics to try to stop vitally important sex education information from getting to young people."
If this were a clear-cut violation of wire tapping laws, there is no need for a a lengthy discovery period. Dragging this out for THREE YEARS is ridiculous, proving that this is NOT as clear-cut as you think.
This is nothing more GLAD running up legal expenses to stick it to the "right-wing organization Parents Rights Coalition" and Brian Camenker, with support from the pro-homo government of Massachusetts. Yeah madg, Camenker is definitely being harrassed.
BTW, the suit brought by GLAD is a CIVIL SUIT
As Clint N. Suhks stated in reply 267:
"This is a SLAP suit plain and simple, it’s part of the sleazy tactics used by the pro-sodomy agenda."
Well said, Clint!
Meanwhile, the DA quakes in fear at the feet of the Massachusetts homosexual community and fails to issue an official ruling on a complaint that minor children have been exposed obscene and harmful material...